Effects of Play in an Upright Position on Intra-Individual Variability of Gross Motor and Language Development in Institutionalized Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Objective: To investigate the effects of play in an upright position on intra-individual variability and to examine the relationship between the variability of gross motor and language development in institutionalized infants aged six to ten months. (2) Methods: Thirty infants were conveniently enrolled in either the experimental or control groups. The Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) and the Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scales Developmental Profile (CSBS-DP) Infant/Toddler Checklist were tested pre and post each monthly intervention for three months. Sixteen infants in the experimental group received an additional program of 45 min play in an upright position three times a week for a 3-month period. (3) Results: There were significant between-group differences in intra-individual variability of the AIMS percentiles (p-value = 0.042). In addition, there was a significant difference in the intra-individual variability of the language percentile between groups (p-value = 0.009). The intra-individual variability of gross motor development was significantly correlated (rs = 0.541; p = 0.03) with language development. (4) Conclusions: Play in an upright position could be applied to improve intra-individual variability in gross motor and language development percentiles in institutionalized infants.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".